linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070830082652.GA2669@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:26:53 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...il.com>,
	"Valdis\.Kletnieks\@vt\.edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>, linville@...driver.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2

On 29-08-2007 21:37, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 August 2007 21:33:43 Jon Smirl wrote:
>> What if a patch spans both code that is pure GPL and code imported
>> from BSD, how do you license it?
> 
> I think it's a valid assumption, if we say that the author
> of the patch read the license header of a file and agreed with it.
> So the patch is licensed to whatever the fileheader says. And if
> there's none, it's licensed with the COPYING terms.
> If a patch author likes some other license conditions, he must
> explicitely add them with the patch to the file, saying that this
> and that part have these and those conditions. Of course they must
> be compatible with the original license.
> 

I didn't track this thread from the beginning, so maybe I repeat
somebody's ideas (probably like above), but IMHO: do we have to be
so selfish/pedantic? Can't we sometimes 'donate' a little bit to our
'older' bsd cousins or half-brothers? I think, it could be like this:

- if our changes are minor and authors of these changes don't mind
the file could stay BSD licensed only; plus we ask BSD to let it be
dual licensed (but no big hassle);

- otherwise, we should always distinctly mark all GPL parts.

Regards,
Jarek P.

PS: there is probably some mess with gmail addresses in this thread.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/